“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Mahatma Gandhi

If you follow Writer Beware, Absolute Write etc., you’ll notice that Tom Dark has quite a flurry of activity going on. Many of the recent postings have caused some people, like Lisa L. Spangenberg, to launch into “protection” and “salvation” mode; otherwise, they would just ignore Tom Dark . . . they’re not.

Dark, in a couple of very astute Twitter postings, has pointed out a couple of the shortcomings of Victoria Strauss, her followers and other like-kind sites. They attack, criticise, call you names (i.e. “crazy”) and defuse . . . yet, they never respond to the claims against them. For example:

An anonymous source has indicated to TWA that the Florida Attorney General may begin a trial against Publisher Robert Fletcher and his publishing entities. The source stated that the trial could begin in July and run through September.

Part III: John Scalzi Was No Moses – Evaluation of Leadership & the Potential to Lead

“Philosophically, I’m opposed to having only one candidate for a leadership position of any organization I am involved with. I don’t think it speaks well for the organizational health of the body; it suggests an apathetic membership. One can debate whether the membership is apathetic because the organization is not useful enough to be engaged in, or whether the membership is simply apathetic in a general sense (or both). Whatever the cause, it’s not an encouraging sign.” [Emphasis added]

– John Scalzi

John Scalzi, in prior SFWA elections, ran for office unopposed. Has his opinion changed since 2007? Or, is this flip-flopping and waffling? Let’s evaluate Scalzi’s term in office and use some questions as the criteria (or balancing test) to evaluate the fitness of the 2013 candidates (i.e. Theodore Beale & Steven Gould). If you are a SFWA member, you should consider these prior to casting your vote.

In reviewing Scalzi’s departure sermon, do we really need to be made aware of his “personal” triumphs while he held office? It’s really no big secret that Scalzi (who wrote several books while in office), Victoria Strauss and Ann “A.C.” Crispin have used their positions with the SFWA to expand their marketing activities. True Leadership involves self-sacrifice . . . not self-promotion.

“ . . . [I]f I am elected president, you should know now that I will view the position as something I am doing in addition to my writing career, not something of equal importance. I might as well be honest with you on that score.” [Emphasis added]

– John Scalzi

A true leader identifies completely with his/her people (membership), their purpose and is willing to give up everything for them. Did Scalzi epitomize this kind of leadership? How much did he give of himself? That is, did he devote himself to undertaking the duties and fulfilling his responsibilities relative to strengthening the SFWA membership? How much did he sacrifice? Did he sacrifice everything or was his own self-interest and self-promotion a version of his own “Golden Calf”? How encompassing was his commitment to the SFWA and its membership? Did his commitment extend to every member of the SFWA . . . or, was it handed out arbitrarily or selectively? What steps were taken, during his term in office, to ensure the timely filing of compliance documents with state and federal officials?

“I’ve never expected SFWA to do anything for me because I require nothing from it. However, I have the luxury of regarding my membership as an affectation; other members of SFWA might actually want it to do something useful for them. I happen to think SFWA can be useful; I happen to think it doesn’t do a particularly good job of being useful.”

– John Scalzi

Conversely, to what degree were all members of the SFWA able to connect with Scalzi? Was he accessible? How much influence did he weld? How effective has his leadership been? Are there still SFWA members that are in exile? As a “shepherd” did he sustain the external faith (i.e. non-members) in the organization . . . thereby causing individuals to actually want to join the organization? Did he nurture faith (or doubt) with the members of the organization? Did the membership grow or deplete during his term in office? (Note: Beale and Gould have both raised concerns about “membership” in their platforms.) Did he take steps to effectuate a positive culture within the SFWA?

I’ve never expected SFWA to do anything for me because I require nothing from it. However, I have the luxury of regarding my membership as an affectation; other members of SFWA might actually want it to do something useful for them. I happen to think SFWA can be useful; I happen to think it doesn’t do a particularly good job of being useful

– John Scalzi

During Scalzi’s term in office, based on the answers to these questions, what standards, if any, did he set for future Presidents of the SFWA? Would either of the two candidates want to emulate any of his leadership qualities . . . or merely view it as an “affection”? A true leader is able to extend his commitment to everyone . . . even those that rise direct in opposition to his own values, beliefs and concerns. Your own answers to these questions should help you evaluate both of the 2013 candidates. In addition, we hope that the candidates internalize these criteria and update their platforms to address the SFWA’s current short comings.

“I’ve been a SFWA member long enough to know that it’s a fairly thankless position, with lots of herding cats and dealing with aggravating minutiae, and I have a career to look after at the moment.”

– John Scalzi

In our opinion, Scalzi was no Moses in terms of his leadership and commitment to the SFWA. The past election results appear to indicate that his popularity was questionable. In addition, upon first review of the current platforms, it appears that a vote for Steven Gould is a vote for John Scalzi.

On February 7, 2007, Victor E. Cretella, III sent a letter to Christine Norris in the interest of one of his clients, PublishAmerica LLP, declaring that Norris had produced some defamatory remarks regarding his client, and requesting that she quit doing so. At first, Norris declined to agree, yet on February 15, after she acknowledged a second letter, she responded by posting a remark on the Absolute Write Water Cooler (AWWC), an Internet discussion site for yearning writers, stating that Cretella was constraining her to quit posting dissenting comments about PublishAmerica.

The AWWC group responded rapidly and furiously to Cretella’s movement in the interest of PublishAmerica. Consistent with court filings, on February 16, David L. Kuzminski posted a remark stating that “it’s time to report Vic Cretella to the Maryland Bar Association for attempted extortion” and that Cretella’s law firm, Gordon and Simmons, “might not want the black[]eye [that] he’s giving them.” Kuzminski likewise posted a duplicate of a message that he supposedly sent to Gordon and Simmons, and additionally some parts of the Maryland State Bar Association, stating that “Cretella seems to be involved in what I would characterize as extortion” and that Cretella is “actively . . . furthering [PublishAmerica’s] unethical[,] if not illegal[,] methods.” Kuzminski added that he “fully intend[ed] to report [Cretella] to the Maryland State Bar Association.” Kuzminski’s remarks were cited in some ensuing posts on AWWC, the greater part of which extolled his response.

On February 13, 2008, Cretella sued Kuzminski for defamation in federal court in Virginia, asserting that Kuzminski’s charges were false and defamatory. Kuzminski responded with a motion to dismiss, stating that his articulations were just supposition or simply opinion.

The court dismissed two of the seven counts in the complaint, on the basis that the proclamations weren’t actionable. In any case, the court denied the motion as to the other five counts, holding that Kuzminki’s other asserted statements – the accusations of extortion and unethical conduct, embarrassment by Cretella’s former law firm, that Cretella took action against another author – all were proclamations that might be indicated to be false. The court held that “many courts have regarded accusations of unlawful activity as statements of fact.”

The matter went to the jury. On 2/4/2009, the jury returned a verdict for Cretella in the amount of $236,000.

How Pathetic Can Preditors & Editors David L. Kuzminski Be?

“Authors in general don’t have a lot of money, and lawsuits are expensive.”

– James D. MacDonald

“Help Defend P&E – Unfortunately, there are those who do not like P&E or its editor because we give out information that they would prefer remain hidden from writers. Usually, they slink away, but not this time. P&E is being sued and we are asking for donations to mount a legal defense in court. Please click on the link below and give if you can to help protect P&E so it can continue to defend writers as it has for over a decade.”

The quote above is the headline to the Preditors & Editors website. Seriously, how pathetic can David L. Kuzminski be? Asking authors to bail his tuches (ass) out with donations to fund his legal defense? We don’t need to tell you that authors are generally not the highest paid individuals. For David L. Kuzminski to ask for financial assistance from them is despicable. As you may know, a self-published author must sell approximately 5000 books before he/she breaks even. Considering David L. Kuzminski’s own Amazon Sales Rankings, it’s no wonder that he would solicit handouts for a legal problem that he alone created.

David L. Kuzminski, if you’re going to “give out information” at least back it up with primary source material. It’s not that some people “do not like P&E,” it is, however, the total lack of disregard of proving claims with demonstrative evidence that people don’t agree with. Unfortunately, in your case, it appears to have caught up with you. It’s your problem and it’s time for you, and only you, to face it. Again, to request struggling authors to financially support your legal defense is despicable. It reeks of the very same accusations you’ve made against various publishing companies. literary agents and individuals. It’s time to put your big boy pants on and face your own reality. If your experience contributes anything to the publishing world, perhaps it will be what not to do and solidify the need for using primary source material. If the low donations to the “Atlanta Nights” film project (and the dreadful Amazon Sales Rankings of the companion book) are any indication of author support, we would assume that few are supporting your plea. Please, stop begging from authors and remove this pathetic request for donations. Remember what “Uncle Jim” says, “money flows to the author.” However, it should not flow to the legal defense fund of another author.